Louie Kyle Fale, by Louie John Sin, His Next Friend v. Dean G. Acheson, as Secretary of State

Ninth Circuit

Louie Kyle Fale, by Louie John Sin, His Next Friend v. Dean G. Acheson, as Secretary of State

241 F.2d 707

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 1957

Docket13971_1

StatusPublished

This text of 241 F.2d 707 (Louie Kyle Fale, by Louie John Sin, His Next Friend v. Dean G. Acheson, as Secretary of State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Louie Kyle Fale, by Louie John Sin, His Next Friend v. Dean G. Acheson, as Secretary of State, 241 F.2d 707 (9th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Under Rule 18 of this court, 28 U.S.C.A. (formerly Rule 20) appellant’s brief in this case was required to be filed not later than December 12, 1953. Appellant has thus far failed to file a brief, and has not secured an extension of time within which to do so. In an affidavit in opposition to the present motion appellant’s attorney states that at the time the appeal was taken, cases involving the same questions were pending before this court, and that preparation of appellant’s brief was therefore delayed. The names of the cases were not disclosed nor what were the identical issues. In a counter-affidavit filed December 24, 1956, the appellee’s attorney disclaims any knowledge of such pending cases. There has been no response from appellant’s attorney.

Because of appellant’s prolonged delay of over three years in violation of the rules of this court without adequate excuse or reason the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. United States v. Lathrop, 9 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 954.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Under Rule 18 of this court, 28 U.S.C.A. (formerly Rule 20) appellant’s brief in this case was required to be filed not later than December 12, 1953. Appellant has thus far failed to file a brief, and has not secured an extension of time within which to do so. In an affidavit in opposition to the present motion appellant’s attorney states that at the time the appeal was taken, cases involving the same questions were pending before this court, and that preparation of appellant’s brief was therefore delayed. The names of the cases were not disclosed nor what were the identical issues. In a counter-affidavit filed December 24, 1956, the appellee’s attorney disclaims any knowledge of such pending cases. There has been no response from appellant’s attorney.

Because of appellant’s prolonged delay of over three years in violation of the rules of this court without adequate excuse or reason the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. United States v. Lathrop, 9 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 954.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 F.2d 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louie-kyle-fale-by-louie-john-sin-his-next-friend-v-dean-g-acheson-as-ca9-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack